Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 1:28 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Federal National Mortgage Association Message Board

radcliffff 79 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 19, 2014 1:13 AM Member since: Sep 3, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 19, 2014 1:13 AM Flag

    The white water is rising around Obama and his staff. The convenience of the mum treatment of the subject of the heist and his lawlessness is coming to an end.

    If Obama were a reasonable and practical man, we would simply concede the cases, end the sweep, cancel the shareholder "agreements," i.e., give up the 79.9% of the preferred and warrants for 79.9% of the common and release Fannie and Freddie. But no, hubris, pride, arrogance and the delusional belief that he can somehow outsmart and outtalk anyone and everyone, not matter what is going on. That's right, let the most open President in the world ever, fight and delay discovery. Let your denial of reality end up destroying you and your staff as discovery finally swallows you up.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • There is no need for a trial in the Perry Capital case because the facts are not in dispute. The differences of opinion are over the two sides' interpretations of the law. It is entirely up to the judge whether or not there will be a hearing. The judge could simply move tomorrow to a summary judgment, should he be so inclined.

    My belief is that no true Reagan Republican appointee is going to be so stupid as to pass up the opportunity of letting the ultimate Democratic archrivals, President Obama and his staff, squirm and twist and, finally, hang themselves, one by one, as the truth of their lawlessness, corruption, greed and theft beyond imagination is every so slowly, but inexorably, revealed in the discovery that awaits them in Judge Sweeney's Court.

    Only after all is revealed, will Judge Lamberth blithely step forward and bring down his judicial axe on crown of his Democratic enemies.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:56 PM Flag

    Thanks, Frank!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:55 PM Flag

    Agreed. What is more, anything short of a complete administrative record at the time of the decision to impose the sweep will render it "capricious and arbitrary" and therefore in violation of the APA!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:50 PM Flag

    Thanks, dgplexus2!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:50 PM Flag

    Thanks, james!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:49 PM Flag

    Thank you sudir.kalapala! I just took your advice.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:47 PM Flag

    -My apologies for the out of sequence posting-
    P_rt 4

    AUG 13, 2014 FAIRHOLME v. USA,#13-CV-465C, STATUS MTG TRANSCRIPT
    Pg 42

    THE COURT: ...But the whole purpose
    of this exercise, what’s before me now, is to allow the
    Plaintiffs to have their day in court and for them to have
    the opportunity to explore whether or not the United States
    Government, whether we’re talking about Treasury or whether
    it was -- and I’m just pulling this out of the air -- the
    White House, whoever it was, whether they directed the
    conservatorships to take certain actions, whether they were
    really the guiding force and, so -- and, therefore, they
    really were not independent or they really are for -- at
    least for purposes of the net worth sweep with the third
    amendment, acting at the direction of the United States
    Government.
    If they were taking -- if the conservators
    were taking their marching orders from within the United
    States Government, regardless of branch, whether you’re
    talking about the executive -- so -- or, you know, I can’t
    imagine that -- or whether it’s Congress, I just don’t know,
    working in conjunction with the White House or Treasury,
    whatever it might be, then that information has to brought
    forward.
    Now, if the fact that it would be subject to the
    protective order and it wouldn’t be publicly available, you

    Pg 43

    know, no one can set up a website, click here to find
    whatever document, no one leaks it to the press, or to
    anyone, then that information has to be provided to the
    Plaintiffs because it’s not fair for the United States
    Government to say to the Plaintiffs, you know, Freddie
    Mac, Fannie Mae are independent, there was no exercise of
    control.
    And if the Justice Department receives documents
    from these two agencies, the conservators, showing in fact
    there was control, that’s hiding the -- I mean, I know three
    very fine attorneys, people of integrity, but I’m ju

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 3:19 PM Flag

    Part 3 (Supporting Excerpts From Court Transcript)
    JULY 16, 2014 FAIRHOLME v. USA,#13-CV-465C, STATUS MEETING TRANSCRIPT
    Page 29

    COURT [Judge Sweeney]: …And one thing that does concern me is that the Government is going to designate the entire universe of documents as protected. And as I understand it, the Government still haven’t reviewed all of those documents yet. So – but I also understand you to say that despite that initial blanket designation, you will go back then and look at each document and make a determination as to whether or not it should be protected.
    Mr. SCHWIND: Correct, Your Honor. …
    COURT: Has the Government - - are you beginning - - how far along in your review are you?

    Page 30


    MR. SCHWIND: Well, as we are substantially along. I don’t want to - - U don’t know how to phrase this, but we have started - - we started some time ago, seeks, at least, in reviewing documents for responses and privilege. We are not finished that process yet, but we do expect it to be concluded, I’d say, in the next – within the next month.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 1:57 AM Flag

    Yahoo won't let me post parts 3 and 4. I will try do so later today.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 1:46 AM Flag

    Part 5
    saying, if that’s what you -- and you probably haven’t seen
    all the documents. But if you’re -- I don’t want
    instructions to be given to clients or to these entities that
    they don’t have to produce certain documents if, in fact,
    it’s going to answer the question, were these entities part
    of the United States Government. Were they controlled by
    Treasury? If that’s what the documents show, I realize I’m
    preaching to the choir saying that, you have to turn it over
    to Plaintiffs.
    So, if you’re invoking privilege to block the
    Plaintiffs’ entryway into the courthouse door, you can’t do
    it. I know you know that, but you can go back and tell your
    clients I said so, and that might either make their life
    easier or more difficult or perhaps both, depending upon

    Pg 44

    which issue you’re discussing.
    But, hopefully, that will help your discussions
    with the Plaintiffs -- excuse me, with the United States, and
    it -- hopefully, that helps. If it doesn’t, I’ll see
    motions,…

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 17, 2014 1:42 AM Flag

    Part 2
    had to finally file a motion to compel. Since the Judge already asked Mr. Cooper to file a motion to compel, i.e., so she could get on with doing her job, we already know how she will rule, even if we have to wait for the Gov’t to file another usless time killing opposition brief. Either way, this will be the turning point that effectively settles the issue of the Sweep. After that, they will go after the evidence that further strengthen’s their case, provides legally actionable evidence against many members of both administrations, and then on to the warrants, which was the true purpose of expanding discovery back to 2008! If Judge Sweeney somehow chooses not to rule on the warrants in the Fairholme case, there will be enough evidence to pass on to the Berman legal team, which is handling the Washington Federal v. USA lawsuit (that Judge Sweeney also happens to preside over), who, BTW, have been attending all of the status conferences. For anyone who hasn’t be following, Berman, aside from seeking and end to the Sweep, also takes direct aim at setting aside the illegal stock “agreements” that handed 79.9% of the preferred and warrants for 79.9% of the common to the Gov’t back in 2008.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • 1) The transcript of the 7/16/14 Fairholme v. USA’s status meeting, shows Schwind told Judge Sweeney that the Gov’t would be finished reviewing the documents within the month of August.

    2) In the transcript of the 8/13/14 Fairholme v. USA’s status meeting, Judge Sweeney:
    a) Effectively told Mr. Cooper that he should file motions to compel if the Gov’t doesn’t cooperate with his discovery requests, and he responded by promising to file one by the following week, i.e., the week of 8/20/14 (Since he didn’t file one, we can assume that the Gov’t attorneys are probably cooperating);
    b) Told the Gov’t attorneys that:
    i) If they have any documents that address the key documents in question in the case, i.e., documents show that the White House, Treasury or any branch of Gov’t were directing the FHFA such that it was not acting as an independent Gov’t agency, they must turn them over to the Plaintiffs attorneys and inform their clients, effectively, Obama, Lew and Watt, that they must be turned over. In addition, since there is a blanket protective order in place to make sure the public can’t see any of the documents, they cannot invoke privilege to block the Plaintiffs attorneys from seeing them. And if they don’t cooperate, she’ll see motions to compel the production of them from Mr. Cooper.
    ii) While every document that initially falls under the blanket protective order, the Gov’t will review and remove privilege from every document that doesn’t qualify for it and if it doesn’t, Judge Sweeney will see to it that they are removed, even if she has to require briefs from both sides before doing so.

    This means that at the next status meeting, the Gov’t can no longer claim it hasn’t read all 800K documents (again Schwind said they would have finished reading everything within August), so it either complied with the judge’s 8/13 instructions or defied them. If they were defied, Mr. Cooper would have...

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 4, 2014 7:24 PM Flag

    Thank you, greaterbano!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 4, 2014 7:23 PM Flag

    Thank you, dgplexus1!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 4, 2014 4:08 PM Flag

    Thank you, chessmaster315!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 4, 2014 1:57 AM Flag

    PART 2
    The purpose of the September trial in the Starr Int’l Co. v. US case, is to determine if the case has merit and, as David Boies said, “…this case will be very easy to litigate.”
    This case will effectively serve as one of the many precedents in the Washington Federal Case (No. Document 13-385 C), that will allow Judge Sweeney, in the Federal Court of Claims, to simply set aside the warrants for 79.9% of the common shares in Fannie and Freddie.
    * http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000140103

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • jmurrayx said:
    September 4, 2014 at 1:36 am
    RE: Starr Int’l Co. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 50, 69 (2012)
    As David Boies, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Starr Int’l Co. v. US [a k a “AIG case”], said back on January 10, 2013 on CNBC,* the Federal Court of Claims, in Washington, D.C. [Judge Wheeler], already ruled on the legal issue in the case, i.e., pursuant to Sec. 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA), that when the Gov’t makes a loan to a company to stabilize the economy, while the Gov’t is authorized to get interest and security on a loan, it CANNOT get equity in a company, i.e., “the right to take over a company…in this case, 80% [79.9%] of the company.”
    In the words of Judge Wheeler (From Page 2 of Starr International Co., Inc. v. United States, Case No. 11-00779(C) (Fed. Cl.)):

    “In its initial and amended complaints, Starr alleged that through the actions of (1) the imposition of the Credit Agreement on September 22, 2008 by which the Government obtained a 79.9% equity interest in American International Group, Inc., (“AIG”), and (2) the reverse stock split on June 30, 2009 by which shareholders were denied a separate vote, the Government effected a taking of illegal exaction of the property of shareholders in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a prior opinion and order on the Government’s motion to dismiss, the Court determined that Starr had sufficiently pled these two events as government actions allegedly requiring just compensation, although the Court made no determination as to the merits of such claims. Starr Int’l Co. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 50, 69 (2012).”

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • radcliffff radcliffff Sep 4, 2014 1:47 AM Flag

    PART 2

    * "Fannie, Freddie to Buy $40 Billion a Month of Troubled Assets, By Dawn Kopecki - October 11, 2008 00:00 EDT," which is available at:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aDjJYMSphyM0&pid=newsarchive

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • POSTED BY JMURRAYX
    Thank you, Anonymous!!!

    It is really good to see someone actually pointing out the importance of reading WASHINGTON FEDERAL v. USA. It's a shame, but it seems too few know about it let alone have read it. Like all the other 20 lawsuits, it covers the illegality of the Net Worth Sweep, but unlike any of the other lawsuits, this is the only one to ALSO layout the illegality of the following:

    1) The FORCED Conservatorships;

    2) The FORCED assumption of $188 Billion in debt from Treasury;

    3) The FORCING of Fannie and Freddie to bailout the banks of the toxic assets
    that were sinking them (the banks);*

    4) The FORCED Stock "Agreements," including:
    a) 79.9% of the Preferred Shares;
    b) Warrants from 79.9% of the Common Shares; and
    c) 10% Dividend


    5) QUESTION:
    a) If the Gov't:
    i) Sequestered you from talking to anyone publicly;
    ii) Seized your net worth
    iii) Forced you to take on a massive loan that was beyond your imagination;
    iv) Forced you to use such an odious loan to buy up all the toxic debts of your
    neighbor and assume responsibility for paying off the loan, no matter how
    long it takes;
    v) Blamed you publicly for burdening the public with the risk of having to bail
    you out of the aforesaid loan, because you are so irresponsible;
    vi) Forced you to work like a slave to payoff a loan that is not even yours,
    while your neighbor, a free man, goes on to make billions of profits
    WOULDN'T EVERYONE KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE WRONG TO EVEN ASK
    YOU TO PAY ANY KIND OF DIVIDEND?

    * "Fannie, Freddie to Buy $40 Billion a Month of Troubled Assets, By Dawn Kopecki - October 11, 2008 00:00 EDT," which is available at:

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

FNMA.OB
0.00(0.00%)

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.